googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
User talk:WaxPlanck
Welcome! Hello, and welcome to Googology Wiki! I hope you have a good time here. However, "WaxPlanck Function", a page you created, was moved off the mainspace and turn into your blog post, because functions and numbers you created without an external source isn't suitable for the mainspace. Next time, if you want to show off your creation, please do so as a . Thanks! -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 14:08, October 16, 2017 (UTC) WaxPlanck could you show us the combinators that achieve Xi(11)>15,000,000 Tomtom2357 (talk) 10:03, October 23, 2017 (UTC) When you post a message at a talk page or a forum page, please put the message at the bottom of the relevant section. Also, it would be better to put your signature at the end of your message. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 13:32, October 25, 2017 (UTC) 11:35, November 22, 2017 (UTC) Tomtom, I used the combinator SSS(SI)S(SS(SSO)) and to the googology community, I am sorry for making unsourced edits because I am new to this site and I won't edit other pages besides my blog pages. I'm in high school and I love numbers. This has been fun for me, but now that I know the proper etiquette, I am going to be done editing. Again, I apologize for the confusion and I look forward to learning new stuff here. (I am WaxPlanck and I forgot to log in. :Don't quit just yet! The results you've got might be useful to us. It would be better to explain a bit more about your results. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 13:34, November 22, 2017 (UTC) :::Yeah. I for one, would like to know which 7-combinator got you Ξ(7)=93. And more specifically: what's the maximum intermediate length of this one, before it settles down to 93? :::This is of particular interest, because: :::(a) It can be readily verified or refuted with a simple computer program. :::(b) If your result is correct than the current article is wrong, which is something we should care about. :) PsiCubed2 (talk) 21:25, November 22, 2017 (UTC) ::: WaxPlanck (talk) 23:11, November 22, 2017 (UTC) Dear PsiCubed2, thank you for looking at the Xi(7) combinator output length. I think was right because I counted the characters from a Haskell program at bit.do/XiZippySrc and I used the command on Linux: "echo '(SSS(SI)SO)' | ./Main | egrep -o 'S|I|O' | wc -l". The combinator that I used was SSS(SI)SO where O stands for oracle. Dear Cloudy176, I used "SSS(SI)S(SO)" for Xi(8), "SSS(SI)S(SSO)" for Xi(9), "SSS(SI)S(SS(SO))" for Xi(10), and I am planning to use "SSS(SI)S(SS(SSO))" for Xi(11) (if it is practical to compute with a 1.5 GHz 2-core Intel CPU with 2 cores to compute the 11-length combinator with up to 64 gigabytes of swap memory.) So, the values are: Xi(7) = 93, Xi(8) = 1,180, Xi(9) = 67,331, and Xi(10) = 582,183. (I computed incorrectly for Xi(10), sorry and I'm not leaving any time soon, but I won't edit wiki pages, I'll mint new ideas on my blog and leave the heavy-lifting/editing to more experienced members.) : Huh? For Xi(7) and Xi(8) you've just given the same strings that were originally listed on the mainspace article. We already know that SSS(SI)SO gets us 51 and SSS(SI)S(SO) gets us 98. I've also verified these two results with my own program, and they are correct. : For Xi(9) you've given a string that's actually doing worse than the one given in the article. SSS(SI)S(SSO) gets'' ''us eiither 76 ot 32 (the exact value depends on some tricky oracle answers which my program couldn't resolve). : In short, it is clear that your program isn't working properly. And even if it did, these would only be lower bounds. There are many ''many ''combinations which don't halt at all, and no program could weed them out automatically. PsiCubed2 (talk) 14:15, November 23, 2017 (UTC) The Deletion of Your Blog Post I noticed you left a message on Vel!'s talk page requesting your blog post Forum:Is Hedrondude a Real Mathematician? be deleted. However, Vel! is not an admin who is regularly active on this site, and therefore you may want to leave a message on Cloudy176's talk page. He normally does not delete blog posts unless there is a convincing reason to do so however.